1

Summa Theologica III q27. Of the Sanctification of the Blessed

Virgin

1. Whether the Blessed Virgin, Mother of God, was sanctified before her birth from

the womb?

2. Whether she was sanctified before animation?

[Intervening Article. Whether innocence is a more outstanding benefit from God

than repentance?]

3. Whether in virtue of this sanctification the fomes of sin was entirely taken away

from her?

4. Whether the result of this sanctification was that she never sinned?

5. Whether in virtue of this sanctification she received the fullness of grace?

6. Whether it was proper to her to be thus sanctified?

[From the Summa Theologica of Saint Thomas Aquinas as translated by the Fathers of the English

Dominican Province, and from the works of Blessed John Duns Scotus as selected and arranged by Jerome

of Montefortino and as translated by Peter L.P. Simpson. Texts are taken from the Opus Oxoniense and the

Reportata Parisiensia of the Wadding edition of Scotus’ works.]

Article 1. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before her birth from the

womb?

Aquinas

Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed

Virgin was not sanctified before her birth

from the womb. For the Apostle says (1

Cor. 15:46): “That was not first which is

spiritual but that which is natural;

afterwards that which is spiritual.” But by

sanctifying grace man is born spiritually

into a son of God according to Jn. 1:13:

“(who) are born of God.” But birth from

the womb is a natural birth. Therefore the

Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before

her birth from the womb.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine says (Ep.

ad Dardan.): “The sanctification, by which

we become temples of God, is only of

those who are born again.” But no one is

born again, who was not born previously.

Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not

sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Scotus [Oxon. 3 d 3 q.1; Report. ib.]

Objection 1. It seems that the Blessed

Virgin was not sanctified before birth from

the womb. For if so [Oxon. 3 d 3 q.1 n.3),

she would have been sanctified before she

was born; therefore she would have been

cleansed from original sin through

sanctifying grace (for at any rate she could

then have had original sin); therefore if she

had died before the passion of her Son, she

would have entered the gates of paradise:

but this seems unacceptable, that she the

redeemed should enter thither first before

the Redeemer; therefore she was not

sanctified before birth from the womb.

Objection 2. [Oxon. ib.] The Blessed

Virgin came into the world according to the

common way of propagating; therefore in

her was the same infection, wherever it

finally comes from, as is in the other sons

of Adam propagated in the common way;

2

Objection 3: Further, whoever is sanctified

by grace is cleansed from sin, both original

and actual. If, therefore, the Blessed Virgin

was sanctified before her birth from the

womb, it follows that she was then

cleansed from original sin. Now nothing

but original sin could hinder her from

entering the heavenly kingdom. If therefore

she had died then, it seems that she would

have entered the gates of heaven. But this

was not possible before the Passion of

Christ, according to the Apostle (Heb.

10:19): “We have [Vulg.: ‘having’]

therefore a confidence in the entering into

the Holies by His blood.” It seems

therefore that the Blessed Virgin was not

sanctified before her birth from the womb.

Objection 4: Further, original sin is

contracted through the origin, just as actual

sin is contracted through an act. But as long

as one is in the act of sinning, one cannot

be cleansed from actual sin. Therefore

neither could the Blessed Virgin be

cleansed from original sin as long as she

was in the act of origin, by existence in her

mother’s womb.

On the contrary, The Church celebrates the

feast of our Lady’s Nativity. Now the

Church does not celebrate feasts except of

those who are holy. Therefore even in her

birth the Blessed Virgin was holy.

Therefore she was sanctified in the womb.

I answer that, Nothing is handed down in

the canonical Scriptures concerning the

sanctification of the Blessed Mary as to her

being sanctified in the womb; indeed, they

do not even mention her birth. But as

Augustine, in his tractate on the

Assumption of the Virgin, argues with

reason, since her body was assumed into

heaven, and yet Scripture does not relate

this; so it may be reasonably argued that

she was sanctified in the womb. For it is

therefore just as the rest of men are born

with offense of original guilt, by parity the

Blessed Virgin too came into the world as

other men do. And [Oxon. ib. n.1]

Fulgentius expressly says this in De Fide

ad Petrum, ch.23: “Hold most firmly and

do not in any way doubt that all men who

are conceived through the lying together of

man and woman are born with original

sin;” therefore she was not sanctified

before birth from the womb.

Objection 3. [Oxon. 4 d.4 q.3 n.1].

According to the Apostle (1 Cor. ch. 15):

“Not what is spiritual is first but what is

animal, then what is spiritual;” therefore it

is necessary for everyone to be born

carnally first before being reborn

spiritually; therefore the Blessed Virgin

could not be sanctified before birth from

the womb.

On the contrary, [Oxon. Prol. q.2 n.8] the

authority of the Catholic Church is so great

that Augustine says, Epistolam fundamenti:

“I would not believe the Gospel unless I

believed the Catholic Church.” But this

Church celebrates the birth of the Blessed

Virgin; therefore it was necessary for her to

have been holy before she was born.

Again, [Oxon. 4 d.4 q.3 n.2] John the

Baptist was sanctified in the womb of his

mother, Luke ch.1, therefore more so the

Mother of God and Queen of all the Saints.

I answer that, it must be said that the

Blessed Virgin was sanctified before birth

from the womb. The authority of the

Church is altogether convincing on this;

and that it involves no repugnance is made

clear: for, [Oxon. 3 d 3 q.1 n.9] as far as

Divine acceptation is concerned, grace is

equivalent to original justice; so much so

that original sin is not imputed to one who

has grace, as is clear in Baptism or in

Circumcision. In whatever instant,

3

reasonable to believe that she, who brought

forth “the Only-Begotten of the Father full

of grace and truth,” received greater

privileges of grace than all others: hence

we read (Lk. 1:28) that the angel addressed

her in the words: “Hail full of grace!”

Moreover, it is to be observed that it was

granted, by way of privilege, to others, to

be sanctified in the womb; for instance, to

Jeremias, to whom it was said (Jer. 1:5):

“Before thou camest forth out of the womb,

I sanctified thee”; and again, to John the

Baptist, of whom it is written (Lk. 1:15):

“He shall be filled with the Holy Ghost

even from his mother’s womb.” It is

therefore with reason that we believe the

Blessed Virgin to have been sanctified

before her birth from the womb.

Reply to Objection 1: Even in the Blessed

Virgin, first was that which is natural, and

afterwards that which is spiritual: for she

was first conceived in the flesh, and

afterwards sanctified in the spirit.

Reply to Objection 2: Augustine speaks

according to the common law, by reason of

which no one is regenerated by the

sacraments, save those who are previously

born. But God did not so limit His power to

the law of the sacraments, but that He can

bestow His grace, by special privilege, on

some before they are born from the womb.

Reply to Objection 3: The Blessed Virgin

was sanctified in the womb from original

sin, as to the personal stain; but she was not

freed from the guilt to which the whole

nature is subject, so as to enter into

Paradise otherwise than through the

Sacrifice of Christ; the same also is to be

said of the Holy Fathers who lived before

Christ.

Reply to Objection 4: Original sin is

therefore, that that soul was in the womb of

her mother, God could have given her

equal or greater grace than was to be given

in Baptism; therefore she would then have

been sanctified. And also, in the first

instant of her being, when original sin

ought to have been present, if God had then

given sanctifying grace, the stain of

original sin would have been prevented.

And if that stain is thought to be contracted

and to overflow into the soul from infected

flesh, God could equally have cleansed the

flesh itself and afterwards have infused the

soul. And if that soul had been for a single

instant under original guilt, it is in no way

unacceptable to understand that it was

cleansed immediately after that instant; for

if a natural agent [Oxon. ib. n.10] can begin

to act in an instant, in such a way that in

that instant there was a subject in a state of

rest under the contrary property and in the

immediately following time, supposing it

was under the property of being cold, it

was, through the action of the agent, under

the property of being hot, much more could

that come about through a supernatural

agent. For in whatever instant a natural

agent acts God can act; therefore in the

time immediately following upon the

instant in which the soul of the Blessed

Virgin was under original guilt, he could

infuse grace into it and destroy original

guilt. But if she had been under guilt for

some time, God could also, before she was

born, bestow grace upon her, as he does

with those already born and who receive

the sacrament of Baptism.

Reply to Objection 1. I deny that the

Blessed Virgin, just from the fact that she

was sanctified and cleansed from original

sin before she was born, would have been

going to enjoy heavenly glory if she had

died before her Son; for [Oxon. ib. n.19]

the Holy Fathers who had died before the

death of Christ were found in limbo, even

4

transmitted through the origin, inasmuch as

through the origin the human nature is

transmitted, and original sin, properly

speaking, affects the nature. And this takes

place when the off-spring conceived is

animated. Wherefore nothing hinders the

offspring conceived from being sanctified

after animation: for after this it remains in

the mother’s womb not for the purpose of

receiving human nature, but for a certain

perfecting of that which it has already

received.

___________________________________

though some of them had already been

cleansed from original sin before they were

born. Therefore the gate of heaven was

closed before payment of satisfaction for

the guilt of Adam; for God had declared

that he was going indeed to remit original

guilt, because of the passion of his Son

foreseen, to everyone who believes and

will believe in him, but not that he was

going to remit the punishment due to that

sin, namely the lack of the Divine vision,

because of the passion as foreseen, but

because of it as displayed and represented.

Therefore just as the gate was not open to

the Fathers who died before the passion of Christ, so, it seems, should it be said of the

Blessed Virgin, if she had parted from this life before her Son.

Reply to Objection 2. I say that from the fact that the Blessed Virgin was born according

to the common way of propagation nothing else follows except that in fact she had the

reason and cause in herself, as being a daughter of Adam, of contracting original sin.

Besides, [Report. 4 d.4 q.3 n.7] we cannot thence infer that she could in no way have

been sanctified in the womb; not only because she could have been prevented by God in

such a way that she was under that very original sin for no instant, as will be clear in the

following article, but also, [Oxon. 4 d.1 q.6 n.11ff.] because just as someone after

Baptism is a son of Adam and yet does not have original guilt, so before baptism, or in

the womb, he could receive the same or greater grace from God, whereby original guilt

might be destroyed, although in the meantime he be propagated, as a son of Adam, by the

common law.

Reply to Objection 3. I reply that the saying of the Apostle is to be understood of those

who are justified according to the common and universal law prescribed by Divine

wisdom, according to which, in the Christian law, they are justified by the reception of

Baptism, and, in the Mosaic law, the Israelites were justified through Circumcision; but

that was not a reason that some could not have been, by a special privilege of God,

justified before they were born from the womb of their mother, as [Oxon. 4 d.4 q.3 n.2] is

said of Jeremiah (Jeremiah 1), and of John the Baptist (Luke 1), and as the Church firmly

holds of the Most Blessed Mother of Christ, all of whom were first carnally conceived

and later on, in nature or in time, justified in their maternal womb.

Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before animation?

Aquinas

Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed

Scotus [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1; Report. ib.]

Objection 1. It seems that the Blessed

5

Virgin was sanctified before animation.

Because, as we have stated (Article. 1),

more grace was bestowed on the Virgin

Mother of God than on any saint. Now it

seems to have been granted to some, to be

sanctified before animation. For it is

written (Jer. 1:5): “Before I formed thee in

the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee”:

and the soul is not infused before the

formation of the body. Likewise Ambrose

says of John the Baptist (Comment. in Luc.

i, 15): “As yet the spirit of life was not in

him and already he possessed the Spirit of

grace.” Much more therefore could the

Blessed Virgin be sanctified before

animation.

Objection 2: Further, as Anselm says (De

Concep. Virg. xviii), “it was fitting that this

Virgin should shine with such a purity that

under God none greater can be imagined”:

wherefore it is written (Canticles 4:7):

“Thou art all fair, O my love, and there is

not a spot in thee.” But the purity of the

Blessed Virgin would have been greater, if

she had never been stained by the

contagion of original sin. Therefore it was

granted to her to be sanctified before her

flesh was animated.

Objection 3: Further, as it has been stated

above, no feast is celebrated except of

some saint. But some keep the feast of the

Conception of the Blessed Virgin.

Therefore it seems that in her very

Conception she was holy; and hence that

she was sanctified before animation.

Objection 4: Further, the Apostle says (Rm.

11:16): “If the root be holy, so are the

branches.” Now the root of the children is

their parents. Therefore the Blessed Virgin

could be sanctified even in her parents,

before animation.

On the contrary, The things of the Old

Virgin was not sanctified until after

original sin had been contracted. For

[Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.3] Christ was the

universal redeemer of everyone and opened

the door to everyone: but if the Blessed

Virgin had not contracted original sin,

Christ would not have been her Redeemer,

because she would not have needed him;

therefore we cannot and we should not

attribute original innocence to his Mother

because this would derogate from her Son

himself.

Objection 2. [Oxon. ib.] The Blessed

Virgin had the penalties common to human

nature as propagated from Adam, namely

hunger, thirst, and other such things; but

she herself did not voluntarily assume these

punishments, as they were voluntarily

assumed by Christ for the satisfaction of

our sins; because the Blessed Virgin was

not our redeemer or repairer; therefore they

were inflicted on her by God; and not

inflicted unjustly; therefore they were

inflicted, as in the case of other human

beings, because of original sin.

Objection 3. If the Blessed Virgin had not

been guilty of original sin, God would have

bestowed a greater benefit on those whom

he did liberate from that guilt than he did

on his Mother: but that does not seem

likely; therefore it is not to be said that she

did not fall in Adam. Proof of the minor:

[Oxon. 4 d.22 n.16] from Luke 7, where it

is held that Christ inquired of Simon about

the two debtors, to one of whom the

creditor had forgiven more and to the other

less, which of them would love the creditor

more; and he replied, “I suppose it was he

to whom he gave more,” and that judgment

was approved by the Savior; therefore

those liberated from sin already contracted

would be more bound to God, because he

had forgiven them more, than the Mother

of Christ, to whom he had forgiven less;

6

Testament were figures of the New,

according to 1 Cor. 10:11: “All things

happened to them in figure.” Now the

sanctification of the tabernacle, of which it

is written (Ps. 45:5): “The most High hath

sanctified His own tabernacle,” seems to

signify the sanctification of the Mother of

God, who is called “God’s Tabernacle,”

according to Ps. 18:6: “He hath set His

tabernacle in the sun.” But of the tabernacle

it is written (Ex. 40:31,32): “After all

things were perfected, the cloud covered

the tabernacle of the testimony, and the

glory of the Lord filled it.” Therefore also

the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified until

after all in her was perfected, viz. her body

and soul.

I answer that, The sanctification of the

Blessed Virgin cannot be understood as

having taken place before animation, for

two reasons. First, because the

sanctification of which we are speaking is

nothing but the cleansing from original sin:

for sanctification is a “perfect cleansing,”

as Dionysius says (Div. Nom. xii). Now sin

cannot be taken away except by grace, the

subject of which is the rational creature

alone. Therefore before the infusion of the

rational soul, the Blessed Virgin was not

sanctified.

Secondly, because, since the rational

creature alone can be the subject of sin;

before the infusion of the rational soul, the

offspring conceived is not liable to sin.

And thus, in whatever manner the Blessed

Virgin would have been sanctified before

animation, she could never have incurred

the stain of original sin: and thus she would

not have needed redemption and salvation

which is by Christ, of whom it is written

(Mt. 1:21): “He shall save His people from

their sins.” But this is unfitting, through

implying that Christ is not the “Savior of

all men,” as He is called (1 Tim. 4:10). It

therefore it is to be supposed that she had

contracted original guilt.

On the contrary, [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.2]

Anselm says (De Conceptione Virg.,

ch.18), “It was fitting that the Virgin

should shine with that purity than which a

greater under God cannot be conceived:”

but if she had once been under original sin,

we could rightly conceive a greater purity;

therefore the Blessed Virgin was most pure

and immune altogether from every sin.

I answer that, it must be said that although

the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified

before her animation, because the flesh, as

it is not the subject of sin, so neither is it of

sanctifying grace, she was nevertheless

sanctified in her very animation, that is to

say, in the same moment in which it was

necessary, from the common law of the

sons of Adam, that guilt be in her, such that

there never was, nor did she contract,

original sin. The very excellence of her

Son, for the purpose of not derogating from

which some hold the opposite opinion, is

what shows this. For [Oxon. ib. n.4] it was

fitting for the most perfect Mediator, such

as Christ the Lord was, to have had the

most perfect act of mediating with respect

to some person of whom he was Mediator:

but he is not conceived to have existed as

the most perfect Mediator of God and of

his Mother unless he had preserved her

from falling into original guilt; therefore

she was preserved from being infected with

original guilt. The minor is shown: [Oxon.

ib.] first by comparison to God to whom he

reconciles: second by comparison to the

evil from which he liberates: third by

comparison to the person for whom he

reconciles. And the first in this way, by

supposing that it was not impossible for

original guilt to be prevented from being

present, since it is not guilt, except

contracted from another; and if that was

7

remains, therefore, that the Blessed Virgin

was sanctified after animation.

Reply to Objection 1: The Lord says that

He “knew” Jeremias before he was formed

in the womb, by knowledge, that is to say,

of predestination: but He says that He

“sanctified” him, not before formation, but

before he “came forth out of the womb,”

etc.

As to what Ambrose says, viz. that in John

the Baptist there was not the spirit of life

when there was already the Spirit of grace,

by spirit of life we are not to understand the

life-giving soul, but the air which we

breathe out [respiratus]. Or it may be said

that in him as yet there was not the spirit of

life, that is the soul, as to its manifest and

complete operations.

Reply to Objection 2: If the soul of the

Blessed Virgin had never incurred the stain

of original sin, this would be derogatory to

the dignity of Christ, by reason of His

being the universal Saviour of all.

Consequently after Christ, who, as the

universal Saviour of all, needed not to be

saved, the purity of the Blessed Virgin

holds the highest place. For Christ did not

contract original sin in any way whatever,

but was holy in His very Conception,

according to Lk. 1:35: “The Holy which

shall be born of thee, shall be called the

Son of God.” But the Blessed Virgin did

indeed contract original sin, but was

cleansed therefrom before her birth from

the womb. This is what is signified (Job

3:9) where it is written of the night of

original sin: “Let it expect light,” i.e.

Christ, “and not see it”---(because “no

defiled thing cometh into her,” as is written

Wis. 7:25), “nor the rising of the dawning

of the day,” that is of the Blessed Virgin,

who in her birth was immune from original

sin.

possible, for no one did it become the

Mediator to have done it than for his

Mother. Therefore the argument is as

follows: [Oxon. n.5] a mediator is not

conceived to mediate most perfectly, or to

placate someone for an offense that had to

be contracted, unless he prevents the

offense from being present and prevents

anyone from being offended by it; for if he

placates someone already offended, and

sways him to remit guilt, he does not

exercise the most perfect act of mediating

or placating, as he would have done by

preventing the offense; therefore Christ

does not most perfectly reconcile or placate

the Trinity for the guilt to be contracted by

the sons of Adam, if he does not prevent

the Trinity from being offended, on

account of the inherent guilt, in some one

among them. Since therefore Christ was

the most perfect Mediator, it is necessary

that he have altogether prevented someone

from contracting original guilt: but it was

not fitting that this be any other besides his

most blessed Mother. -- The argument

under the second head: [Oxon. ib. n.6]

because Christ seems to be more

immediately our Repairer from original sin

than from actual sin; for the necessity of

the Incarnation is commonly assigned from

original sin: but he was to that extent the

most perfect Mediator with respect to his

Mother that he preserved her from every

actual sin; therefore also from original sin;

especially since this original sin is a greater

punishment than the lack of the Divine

vision; for sin is the greatest of

punishments for an intellectual nature;

therefore Christ, as the most perfect

Mediator, merited to take away this most

heavy penalty from his Most Blessed

Mother, otherwise he would not have

reconciled most perfectly nor would he

have been the most perfect Mediator. --

The argument finally from the third.

[Oxon. ib. n.7] A person who has been

8

Reply to Objection 3: Although the Church

of Rome does not celebrate the Conception

of the Blessed Virgin, yet it tolerates the

custom of certain churches that do keep

that feast, wherefore this is not to be

entirely reprobated. Nevertheless the

celebration of this feast does not give us to

understand that she was holy in her

conception. But since it is not known when

she was sanctified, the feast of her

Sanctification, rather than the feast of her

Conception, is kept on the day of her

conception.

Reply to Objection 4: Sanctification is

twofold. one is that of the whole nature:

inasmuch as the whole human nature is

freed from all corruption of sin and

punishment. This will take place at the

resurrection. The other is personal

sanctification. This is not transmitted to the

children begotten of the flesh: because it

does not regard the flesh but the mind.

Consequently, though the parents of the

Blessed Virgin were cleansed from original

sin, nevertheless she contracted original

sin, since she was conceived by way of

fleshly concupiscence and the intercourse

of man and woman: for Augustine says (De

Nup. et Concup. i): “All flesh born of

carnal intercourse is sinful.”

___________________________________

reconciled is not supremely obliged to his

mediator unless he has from him the whole

of the good which he can receive: but

preservation from contracting guilt can be

had through a mediator; therefore no

person was supremely beholden to Christ

as Mediator if he did not preserve anyone

from original sin. (The minor was touched

on also in article 1, and will be declared

more clearly in the following articles.)

Reply to Objection 1. I concede that Christ

is the universal Mediator and Redeemer of

everyone and even of his Most Blessed

Mother, and consequently [Report. 3 d.3

q.1 n.8] that she needed the Redeemer

more than anyone else whatever, and she

needed him the more, indeed, the greater

the good that was conferred on her by him;

and since perfect innocence is a greater

good by far than remission of guilt after an

offense, a greater good was conferred on

her by the Mediator when she was

preserved from original sin than if she had

been purged and cleansed afterwards;

therefore [Oxon. 3 d 3 q.1 n.14] she needed

to the greatest possible extent the

Redeemer through whose merits grace

prevented her from being infected with any

spot of sin, just as others need the Mediator

so that sin contracted might, through him,

be remitted to them.

Reply to Objection 2. About the penalties

and sufferings of the Blessed Virgin I concede that she had them and that she bore them

most powerfully, not because they existed as the consequences of original guilt

contracted from the common way of propagation, as the argument proceeds; but rather

[Oxon. ib. n.8] they were left to her so that she might win merit, whether for herself or for

us; for there is nothing unacceptable if useless and inappropriate punishments, such as are

sins, are taken from her by the Mediator, and useful ones, and those that would be of

advantage, left to her.

Reply to Objection 3. Although [Report. 3 d.3 q.1 n.6] it is true that, of two debtors, he is

more obligated to whom more is forgiven than he to whom less is; nevertheless, it is a

benefit greater by far to be preserved from contracting any obligation of debt than for a

debt already contracted to be forgiven; therefore, that person is bound by an absolutely

9

greater obligation who is preserved by the Mediator from original sin, than the person

who is cleansed of what has already been contracted by the same Mediator, because the

former has received a benefit more excellent by far than those who, after sin has been

contracted, are freed by the grace of the Mediator. (But the intervening article,

appropriately placed below after article 2, should be looked at.)

Scotus again on Article 2. Whether the Blessed Virgin was sanctified before

animation?

[Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1; Report. ib.]

Objection 1. It seems that the Blessed Virgin was not sanctified before her animation but

[Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.1] after original sin had been contracted -- from what Augustine says

(on the passage of John ch. 2 Ecce Agnus Dei), “He alone is innocent because he did not

come thus,” that is, not according to the common way of propagation; but it is established

that the Blessed Virgin did come according to the common way of propagation; therefore

she had her body propagated and formed from infected seed and, as a result, there was the

same reason of infection in her soul from her body as in the souls of others propagated in

like manner. And this also Pope Leo seems to say (Sermon De Nativit. Domini), “as he

found none free of accusation, so he came for the freeing of all.”

Objection 2. [Report. 3 d.3 q.1 n.1] Bernard (Epist. 174) says the same and proves it

from this, that if she had not been conceived in original sin, then either she was cleansed

before she was conceived, or at the moment of her conception; but not before, because

before there was not present a nature able to be cleansed; nor at the same time, because

then there was lust; and in this way she would be cleansed and not cleansed; therefore she

was sanctified after original sin was contracted.

Objection 3. [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.1] Paul says (Romans 5), “In Adam all have sinned and

need the grace of God.” But this is only because in Adam everyone existed in reason’s

seed (ratio seminalis): but it is established that the Blessed Virgin was propagated in

accordance with the same reason; therefore she was sanctified after original sin had been

contracted.

Objection 4. I argue by reason; for she could not be sanctified in the first instant of her

conception; therefore she existed cleansed from original blemish in the subsequent

instants. Proof of the assumption: [Oxon. ib. n.15] the Blessed Virgin was naturally first

the daughter of Adam; for it was necessary for her first to have been a person and

thereafter to be filled with sanctifying grace: but in that prior instant, in which she was

the daughter of Adam, it was binding on her to have the original justice which God had,

in Adam, given to her and to everyone else propagated in the common way; therefore, for

that prior instant, she contracted original guilt, and consequently she was sanctified after

original sin had been contracted.

10

On the contrary, [Report. 3 d.3 q.1 n.1] Augustine says (De Natura et Gratia, ch. 36),

“When there is discussion of sins, I wish, because of the honor of the Lord, to have no

question at all about the Holy Virgin Mary.”

I answer that, the Most Blessed Virgin must be said to have been sanctified, not before

her animation, but in the very instant of nature of her animation or of her conception, not

from for the guilt which was present, but from the guilt which would have been present if

grace, in that same instant, had not been infused into her. Nor does there appear to be

any repugnance involved in this: for [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.9ff.], as was said in the preceding

article, just as God could infuse the grace, by which original sin is destroyed, in

subsequent instants, so he could do it also in any antecedent instant, and therefore also in

the first, in which, that is to say, she was understood, on the part of her substance, to be in

existence; and therefore since he has taught that he made the Mediator to be most perfect,

we must attribute what is more honorific and more excellent to Mary: so [Oxon. 3 d 18

n.17] just as there is in the super-heavenly courts the humanity of Christ our Lord

possessed, without any preceding merits, of supreme grace and glory, and just as there

are many there who have never sinned with personal sin, and many who repented after

their sins; so similarly there should be some person there who was not at any time guilty

of any sin, whether actual or original, and that is the Blessed Virgin Mary.

Reply to Objections. [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.14]. To the authorities which are adduced to the

contrary, the response is this, that any son of Adam naturally owes the debt of original

justice, and by the demerit of Adam he lacks it, and thus every such person has whence

he contracts original sin: but if grace were to be given to someone in the first instant of

the creation of the soul, although he would lack original justice, he does not however owe

the debt of it, because, by the merit of another who prevents the sin, a grace is given to

him that, as far as the Divine acceptation is concerned, is equivalent to that justice, nay

exceeds it; therefore anyone whatever, as far as what is from himself, would possess

original sin, unless another by meriting prevented it; therefore all those propagated from

Adam are sinners because, in the manner that they have their nature from him, they have

also whence they should lack the justice that is owed, unless it be conferred on them from

elsewhere; and that is how are to be expounded all the authorities that could be adduced

against the present solution. -- As to the reason that has been constructed from the first

authority, and that rests on the last, although there was a response in article 1, I say again

[Oxon. ib. n.8) that, insofar as it supposes or accepts that the blemish flows into the soul

from the infected body, it is not the way of Anselm (De Concept. Virg. ch.1), as was said

(Ia IIae q.81). But make the thing stand thus, that just as the infection of the flesh that

nevertheless remains after Baptism would not be a necessary cause that original sin

should remain in the soul; so could God, in the first moment of the conception of the

Virgin, make it to be that her soul would not have a cause of infection, or could prevent

her soul, through grace conferred on it, from also being infected by the body’s infection.

To the argument of Bernard [Oxon. ib. n.20] it can be replied, that in the instant of nature

of her conception there was sanctification, not from guilt, which there was not, but from

the guilt which would have been present if it had not been prevented by grace. -- And

when it is argued that then there was lust, I say that the lust was in the conception and the

11

co-mixing of seeds, not in the conception of natures; and even had the creation of the soul

been in the co-mixing of seeds, yet there is nothing unacceptable in God then having

infused grace in the soul, because of which the soul did not contract any infection from

the flesh sown with lust.

To the argument of Objection 4. I reply thus [Report. 3 d.3 q.1 n.10]: a subject can be

compared to a form and to a privation, and it can be prior in nature to both; similarly a

privation and form can be compared to that which receives them as to the measure by

which each one of them is naturally fit to be present. In the first comparison this

inference does not follow: grace is not present, therefore guilt is present; because in that

prior instant of nature, in which the receiver is prior to the habit and to the privation, it is

not its nature to have one or the other of them; therefore this alone can be inferred, that in

the idea of nature, which is the foundation of filiation from Adam, justice is not included

nor its privation, and this I concede. In the second comparison however, then certainly as

to that measure, by which one or the other is naturally present, if the habit is not present,

the privation really is. -- And if you should argue: [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.18] Mary is not just

in the first instant of nature; therefore in that instant she is unjust, or is not just; -- I say

that the consequence, when the predicates are compound, is false; for this inference does

not follow: it is not a white piece of wood; therefore it is a non-white piece of wood; that

is, it does not follow of itself (for then the thing could not be white). So here: she is not

just in the first instant, that is by reason of herself; therefore she is not just; this does not

follow, for neither of these arguments essentially includes the inference. -- And if you

should argue that in the first instant of her nature she is truly understood not to be just; I

say that that is false; rather, she is truly not understood to be just, because when people

are abstracting there is no falsehood; for from the fact that I am not thinking that a man is

an animal, it is not thereby the case that I am thinking that he is not an animal; because

then an abstraction, by taking away from something what is essentially in it, could not be

without falsehood.

Scotus On The Intervening Article. Whether innocence is a more outstanding

benefit from God than repentance?

[Oxon. 4 d.22; Report. ib.]

Objection 1. It seems that repentance is a greater benefit than innocence. For [Oxon. 4

d.22 n.16], in Luke 7 it is held that Christ inquired of Simon about the two debtors, to one

of whom the creditor had forgiven more and to the second less, which of them would

love the creditor more; and he replied, “I suppose it was he to whom he donated more,”

and the Savior approved his response in these words, “You have judged rightly:” but God

gives nothing to the innocent in this way, because he does not find anything in the

innocent to forgive: but he pardons for the sinner many things through repentance;

therefore the sinner is more bound to God than the innocent, and as a consequence

receives a greater benefit from him, since through repentance what he is accused of is

forgiven.

12

Objection 2. [Oxon. 4 d.22 n.14]. Someone who falls into sin after repentance is acting

against the law of gratitude, against his promise not to sin in the future, and against the

divine precept: but someone who falls from innocence is only acting against gratitude;

therefore someone who falls after repentance sins more gravely; therefore a greater

benefit was conferred on him through repentance, otherwise his sin would not be more

grave.

On the contrary, [Oxon. ib. n.15] someone who falls from the state of innocence through

sin is more gravely sinning than someone who falls from the state of repentance: but

unless innocence were a more outstanding benefit than repentance he would not be more

gravely sinning; therefore innocence is a greater benefit from God than repentance.

Proof of the minor: because the innocent has a lesser occasion of falling; therefore he sins

more gravely than he who, since he had sinned at another time, is relying on weaker

powers of resistance.

I answer that, [Oxon. ib.] it must be said that it is a simply greater divine benefit for

innocence to be preserved than to grant repentance after commission of sin. Proof:

because the state of innocence (insofar, that is, as it not only includes the sanctifying

grace first granted, but as it also involves its additional consequences, as the gift of

perseverance and the other helps, both intrinsic and extrinsic) absolutely and simply joins

one more perfectly to the end, and even more perfectly contains, as concerns freedom

from sin, the effect of penitential grace, than repentance itself; therefore it is a greater

benefit from God. Proof of the assumption: because the gift of innocence frees from sins

by preventing one from falling into them: repentance, however, frees after a fall: but it is

better and more desirable not to fall into sins than after a fall to be freed from them.

Hence God conferred a greater benefit on his Mother by preventing her from contracting

original guilt and from committing any actual sin, than he conferred on Magdalene and

the other Saints who at some time committed sins and were freed through repentance.

She is therefore, from never having fallen into sin, an altogether singular glory and

embellishment among the Blessed .

Reply to Objection 1. I reply [Oxon. ib. n.16] that ‘to be donated’ (donari) can be taken

in two ways: first, indeed, as it is an act of will generously communicating itself, and not

from any debt of its own, to whom it does communicate itself. Secondly, it can be taken

to mean pardon or remit a contracted debt, in which way it is taken when we say, he

condoned sins. According, therefore, to the first sense, greater things are donated to the

innocent, because he is prevented from contracting the debt of sin; but in the second way,

more is condoned to the sinner through remission, because he is freed from the debt to

which he is subject. Besides, the former gift is simply more excellent than the second,

because of those to whom, since they have committed little, God condones little, there is

no one but that another greater benefit is donated to him than the condoning, that is the

remitting, of many things, namely the preserving him from the other sins into which he

could have fallen, and would have fallen, unless he had been preserved by God.

And this doctrine [Oxon. ib. n.17] is from Augustine (Homil. 23 inter 50) expounding the

text cited from Luke, and teaching that he who was preserved by God from committing

13

greater crimes should more confess himself to be a debtor to God then he who has been

freed through repentance from sins committed. His words are these: “You have not been

an adulterer in that past life of yours full of ignorance? Your God says this to you: I was

ruling you for me, I was keeping you for me, so that you would not commit adultery; a

seducer was absent, and I made it so that a seducer was absent. There was a seducer

present, the place was not lacking, the time was not lacking; I made it so that you did not

consent. Recognize then the grace of him to whom you also owe what you did not

commit. That man there is in debt to me for what has been done and that you have seen

remitted: you too are in debt to me for what you have not committed: for there is no sin

which a man does that a second man could not do if his Ruler, by whom he was made to

be man, were absent.” There are those words. If therefore he for whom, by a special

grace, innocence has been preserved is bound to God by a greater obligation of gratitude

than he who was permitted to fall into sins and was raised by repentance, certainly

innocence will be a greater benefit than repentance.

This can be confirmed by an example: [Oxon. ib.] suppose someone should, of his

generosity, concede to another all his property to use at will, but should concede certain

things to someone else as a loan, but when the time of restitution comes he should remit

it; which of the two who were affected by his beneficence should love him more?

Certainly the first who received a greater benefit; and nevertheless he might remit more

to the second; but the fact that he has nothing to forgive the first is from the beneficence

of him who conceded to him generously all his goods, and that is why he received a

greater benefit and is held bound to him by a greater bond of gratitude. That proposition

therefore, he to whom more is forgiven loves the forgiver more, is not true unless it be

referred to one who condones debts and through whose beneficence it is not the case that

he who owes less does not in fact owe as much as the greater debtor does. because, that

is, a benefit is conferred on him through the grace of the creditor by which he is

prevented from incurring as many debts as the other does.

Reply to Objection 2. I reply thus: [Oxon. ib. n.15] some sin can have now one

aggravating circumstance and now another, and it can even happen that a circumstance

that aggravates a sin elicited by that circumstance should, when the circumstance has

personal status, be more grave than some other aggravating circumstance. To the point:

because a penitent has promised that he will not sin again, he will, if he does sin again,

sin by that fact more gravely. But this circumstance does not aggravate in exactly the

same way as the circumstance of the state of innocence does, where less occasion for

offending occurs and the innocent, because more things have been given to him, is more

bound to God; for the fact that he has not offended was from the gift of God, which gift

has not been given to the one repenting.

14

Article 3. Whether the Blessed Virgin was cleansed from the infection of the fomes?

Aquinas

Objection 1: It would seem that the Blessed

Virgin was not cleansed from the infection

of the fomes. For just as the fomes,

consisting in the rebellion of the lower

powers against the reason, is a punishment

of original sin; so also are death and other

corporeal penalties. Therefore the fomes

was not entirely removed from her.

Objection 2: Further, it is written (2 Cor.

12:9): “Power is made perfect in infirmity,”

which refers to the weakness of the fomes,

by reason of which he (the Apostle) felt the

“sting of the flesh.” But it was not fitting

that anything should be taken away from

the Blessed Virgin, pertaining to the

perfection of virtue. Therefore it was

unfitting that the fomes should be entirely

taken away from her.

Objection 3: Further, Damascene says (De

Fide Orth. iii) that “the Holy Ghost came

upon” the Blessed Virgin, “purifying her,”

before she conceived the Son of God. But

this can only be understood of purification

from the fomes: for she committed no sin,

as Augustine says (De Nat. et Grat. xxvi).

Therefore by the sanctification in the womb

she was not absolutely cleansed from the

fomes.

On the contrary, It is written (Canticles

4:7): “Thou art all fair, O my love, and

there is not a spot in thee!” But the fomes

implies a blemish, at any rate in the flesh.

Therefore the fomes was not in the Blessed

Virgin.

I answer that, on this point there are

various opinions. For some have held that

the fomes was entirely taken away in that

sanctification whereby the Blessed Virgin

Scotus [Oxon. 2 d.29; d.32]

Objection 1. It seems that the kindling or

tinder for sin (fomes) was not totally taken

away, through sanctification, from the

Blessed Virgin. For although, from what

was said above (in article 1 of this

question), the Blessed Virgin might have

had original guilt, nevertheless many of the

penalties she was subject to were so that

they might be material to her for merit: but

the kindling of sin would also have been

occasion to her of meriting; therefore she

had it.

Objection 2. The first man, having been

founded in original justice, did not have the

kindling, but there was in him before sin

perfect tranquility; therefore original justice

alone and not grace takes away the

kindling. Now the just, who have grace,

experience the opposition of their inferior

to their superior part, and hence they have

the kindling: but even if the Blessed Virgin

had, through prevenient grace, not

contracted original guilt, original justice

would not thereby have been restored to

her; therefore the kindling would not have

been taken away from her.

Objection 3. (Cf. IIIa q.15 a.2). Christ did

not have the kindling for sin nor original

sin, because he was full of grace and truth,

nor was he a natural son of Adam: but

[Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.15] the Blessed Virgin

did not have this sort of fullness of the

graces, since she was not united

hypostatically to God, and she was the

natural daughter of Adam; therefore the

kindling was not totally taken away from

her.

On the contrary, [Oxon. ib. n.4] it was

necessary for the most perfect Mediator to

15

was sanctified in the womb. Others say that

it remained as far as it causes a difficulty in

doing good, but was taken away as far as it

causes a proneness to evil. Others again,

that it was taken away as to the personal

corruption, by which it makes us quick to

do evil and slow to do good: but that it

remained as to the corruption of nature,

inasmuch as it is the cause of transmitting

original sin to the offspring. Lastly, others

say that, in her first sanctification, the

fomes remained essentially, but was

fettered; and that, when she conceived the

Son of God, it was entirely taken away. In

order to understand the question at issue, it

must be observed that the fomes is nothing

but a certain inordinate, but habitual,

concupiscence of the sensitive appetite. for

actual concupiscence is a sinful motion.

Now sensual concupiscence is said to be

inordinate, in so far as it rebels against

reason; and this it does by inclining to evil,

or hindering from good. Consequently it is

essential to the fomes to incline to evil, or

hinder from good. Wherefore to say that

the fomes was in the Blessed Virgin

without an inclination to evil, is to combine

two contradictory statements.

In like manner it seems to imply a

contradiction to say that the fomes

remained as to the corruption of nature, but

not as to the personal corruption. For,

according to Augustine (De Nup. et

Concup. i.), it is lust that transmits original

sin to the offspring. Now lust implies

inordinate concupiscence, not entirely

subject to reason: and therefore, if the

fomes were entirely taken away as to

personal corruption, it could not remain as

to the corruption of nature.

It remains, therefore, for us to say, either

that the fomes was entirely taken away

from her by her first sanctification or that it

was fettered. Now that the fomes was

have the most perfect act of mediating: but

from this it was necessary that he free his

Mother from every actual sin, and preserve

her from original sin; therefore it was also

necessary for him to constitute her to be

such that she was immune from all kindling

of sin, and from all inclination to sin.

I answer that, it must be said that through

sanctification the kindling was altogether

taken away from the Blessed Virgin; for by

‘kindling’ [Oxon. 2 d.29 n.4] we

understand a proneness in the sensitive

appetite whereby it is borne immediately to

its proper objects and desires to delight in

them, and if it be pulled back therefrom by

the rational appetite, it is not pulled back

willingly and pleasingly, but unwillingly

and with sadness; and from this, of course,

arises a battle between the flesh and the

spirit, and the greatest discord. In the state

of innocence, however, there was peace

and tranquility; but in the Blessed Virgin

there was brought about through

sanctification the same peace and

tranquility; so much so that neither was her

sensitive appetite borne to its proper

objects beyond what was prescribed by her

rational appetite, nor was this for her any

cause of sadness; therefore all kindling of

sin was taken away from her. Declaration

of the minor: for just as, from the

excellence of her Son, whereby he was the

most perfect Mediator and Redeemer, it

was fitting for her to have had the most

special privilege of preservative

redemption, so much so that she was not at

all, as others are, redeemed after fall into

original sin, but before she could be guilty

of it; so, in the same manner, it was fitting

for her to be so far removed from all sin

that not even any the least inclination for it

remained in her; for this equally has regard

to the most noble act of the most perfect

Mediator and Redeemer. -- Again, [Oxon. 3

d.3 q.1] in the other sons of Adam, who in

16

entirely taken away, might be understood

in this way, that, by the abundance of grace

bestowed on the Blessed Virgin, such a

disposition of the soul’s powers was

granted to her, that the lower powers were

never moved without the command of her

reason: just as we have stated to have been

the case with Christ (Question [15], Article

[2]), who certainly did not have the fomes

of sin; as also was the case with Adam,

before he sinned, by reason of original

justice: so that, in this respect, the grace of

sanctification in the Virgin had the force of

original justice. And although this appears

to be part of the dignity of the Virgin

Mother, yet it is somewhat derogatory to

the dignity of Christ, without whose power

no one had been freed from the first

sentence of condemnation. And though,

through faith in Christ, some were freed

from that condemnation, according to the

spirit, before Christ’s Incarnation, yet it

does not seem fitting that any one should

be freed from that condemnation, according

to the flesh, except after His Incarnation,

for it was then that immunity from

condemnation was first to appear.

Consequently, just as before the

immortality of the flesh of Christ rising

again, none obtained immortality of the

flesh, so it seems unfitting to say that

before Christ appeared in sinless flesh, His

Virgin Mother’s or anyone else’s flesh

should be without the fomes, which is

called “the law of the flesh” or “of the

members” (Rm. 7:23,25).

Therefore it seems better to say that by the

sanctification in the womb, the Virgin was

not freed from the fomes in its essence, but

that it remained fettered: not indeed by an

act of her reason, as in holy men, since she

had not the use of reason from the very first

moment of her existence in her mother’s

womb, for this was the singular privilege of

Christ: but by reason of the abundant grace

him sinned, although original sin is

destroyed in Baptism or in Circumcision,

after the original stain, through the merits

of the Mediator, whether as foreseen or as

displayed, there nevertheless remains in

them all the kindling of sin and the

proneness to sin; because, of course,

although he was their Repairer and

Redeemer, he did not, however, with

respect to them, have the most noble act

which it was necessary for him to have.

Since, therefore, he had this act with

respect to his Mother, as he took away

from her actual and original sin, so also he

took away the kindling and every

proneness to sin.

Reply to Objection 1. I concede [Oxon. ib.

n.8] that the kindling of sin could have

been for her an occasion for meriting, just

as was death too and all the other penalties

which she bore; but I deny that for that

reason the kindling was present in her,

because just as she could have contracted

original sin and did not contract it, so her

perpetual innocence and sanctification kept

all kindling away from her. For, just as her

soul was always most pleasing to God and

subject to him, so was it brought about that

the inferior powers of her sensitive appetite

should be subdued under reason and

rational appetite.

Reply to Objection 2. I concede that in

holy men the kindling stands along with

grace at the same time; for the kindling

[Oxon. 2 d 32 n.4] is not as such sin;

because the kindling is not anything other

than a natural proneness of the sensitive

appetite towards its proper objects, which

objects are not to be pursued in this way

but as reason dictates. And I concede also

that the lack of original justice is not taken

away except by that original justice,

because the privation does not depart from

a subject except through the opposite habit.

17

bestowed on her in her sanctification, and

still more perfectly by Divine Providence

preserving her sensitive soul, in a singular

manner, from any inordinate movement.

Afterwards, however, at the conception of

Christ’s flesh, in which for the first time

immunity from sin was to be conspicuous,

it is to be believed that entire freedom from

the fomes redounded from the Child to the

Mother. This indeed is signified (Ezech.

43:2): “Behold the glory of the God of

Israel came in by the way of the east,” i.e.

by the Blessed Virgin, “and the earth,” i.e.

her flesh, “shone with His,” i.e. Christ’s,

“majesty.”

Reply to Objection 1: Death and such like

penalties do not of themselves incline us to

sin. Wherefore though Christ assumed

them, He did not assume the fomes.

Consequently in order that the Blessed

Virgin might be conformed to her Son,

from “whose fullness” her grace was

derived, the fomes was at first fettered and

afterwards taken away: while she was not

freed from death and other such penalties.

Reply to Objection 2: The “infirmity” of

the flesh, that pertains to the fomes, is

indeed to holy men an occasional cause of

perfect virtue: but not the “sine qua non” of

perfection: and it is quite enough to ascribe

to the Blessed Virgin perfect virtue and

abundant grace: nor is there any need to

attribute to her every occasional cause of

perfection.

Reply to Objection 3: The Holy Ghost

effected a twofold purification in the

Blessed Virgin. The first was, as it were,

preparatory to Christ’s conception: which

did not cleanse her from the stain of sin or

fomes, but rather gave her mind a unity of

purpose and disengaged it from a

multiplicity of things (Cf. Dionysius, Div.

Nom. iv), since even the angels are said to

But nevertheless, when grace is present,

that lack is not original guilt because it is

not owed as a debt; therefore justice is

restored in its equivalent as far as the

Divine acceptation is concerned. -- And

when it is said: only original justice and

not grace takes away the kindling; I answer

that, if the grace expels original sin, I

concede the point: but if the grace prevents

it from being present, I deny it; because

since now the grace prevents there ever

being any disorderedness of the soul

towards God, neither will there ever be any

disorderedness of the inferior powers

towards the superior ones; and for that

reason there is great peace and tranquility

especially if it be given without being able

to be lost, as its being in fact so given to

the Blessed Virgin is evident from this, that

she was not at any time going to commit

sin, not even venially; therefore all

disorderedness and proneness to sin was

taken away. -- I answer also in another

way to the assertion that only original

justice and not grace takes away the

kindling; for [Oxon. ib. d.37 q.2 n.9ff.]

although grace does not so perfectly unite

to the ultimate end, as regards some

accidental condition, as the original justice

does, nevertheless it unites simply and

more eminently to the end under the idea of

end, and indeed as regards that respect in

which original sin turns away from the

ultimate end. Since, therefore, through this

sin we are turned away from the ultimate

end in respect of the disorder in our

superior part towards the divine will

(which will was previously desiring

original justice), and since upon this

disorder follows the disorder in our inferior

part towards our superior; then, if it is not

repugnant to grace to take away original sin

so that the lack of the justice previously

given should not be owing as a debt,

neither is it repugnant to grace to prevent or

to take away the disorder of the inferior

18

be purified, in whom there is no stain, as

Dionysius says (Eccl. Hier. vi). The second

purification effected in her by the Holy

Ghost was by means of the conception of

Christ which was the operation of the Holy

Ghost. And in respect of this, it may be

said that He purified her entirely from the

fomes.

___________________________________

part towards the superior; and, although

grace does not perform this in the other

Saints, with Mary it is as has been said,

either because this is a privilege special to

her or because it prevents that very original

sin.

Reply to Objection 3. I say that although

the Blessed Virgin did not have that

fullness of grace which was proper to

Christ, as to the head and fount from which every grace flows into the members;

nevertheless it must be confessed that she had as much fullness as was fitting to the

Mother of the Only Begotten from the Father, which fullness, as it acted so that she

should never sin nor contract the original stain, so it also provided that she should lack

also the kindling of sin.

Article 4. Whether by being sanctified in the womb the Blessed Virgin was

preserved from all actual sin?

Aquinas

Objection 1: It would seem that by being

sanctified in the womb the Blessed Virgin

was not preserved from all actual sin. For,

as we have already stated (Article [3]),

after her first sanctification the fomes

remained in the Virgin. Now the motion of

the fomes, even if it precede the act of the

reason, is a venial sin, albeit extremely

slight, as Augustine says in his work De

Trinitate [*Cf. Sent. ii, D, 24]. Therefore

there was some venial sin in the Blessed

Virgin.

Objection 2: Further, Augustine (Qq. Nov.

et Vet. Test. lxxiii on Lk. 2:35: “Thy own

soul a sword shall pierce”) says that the

Blessed Virgin “was troubled with

wondering doubt at the death of our Lord.”

But doubt in matters of faith is a sin.

Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not

preserved from all actual sin.

Objection 3: Further, Chrysostom (Hom.

Scotus [Oxon. 3. d.3 q.1; Report. ib.]

Objection 1. The Blessed Virgin did not,

through sanctification of this sort, attain to

never sinning. For of whatever sort the

sanctification of the Blessed Virgin was,

she was not placed by it beyond the state of

life; for she was, before she departed from

this life, a wayfarer: but [Oxon. 2 d.20 3

n.4] the will of a creature on the way is

able to sin and to be turned, through an

inordinate conversion to creatures, away

from the end; therefore the sanctification of

the Blessed Virgin did not make her

incapable of sin.

Objection 2. Christ was incapable of sin,

not because he had a fullness of grace, but

rather in so far as his human nature was

hypostatically united to the Word of God

and he enjoyed the Divine Essence: but the

Blessed Virgin was a pure creature and did

not behold the Divine Essence, nor was she

enjoying the beatific object; therefore her

sanctification did not make her incapable of

19

xlv in Matth.) expounding the text:

“Behold thy mother and thy brethren stand

without, seeking thee,” says: “It is clear

that they did this from mere vain glory.”

Again, on Jn. 2:3: “They have no wine,”

the same Chrysostom says that “she wished

to do them a favor, and raise herself in their

esteem, by means of her Son: and

perchance she succumbed to human frailty,

just as did His brethren when they said:

‘Manifest Thyself to the world.’“ And a

little further on he says: “For as yet she did

not believe in Him as she ought.” Now it is

quite clear that all this was sinful.

Therefore the Blessed Virgin was not

preserved from all sin.

On the contrary, Augustine says (De Nat. et

Grat. xxxvi): “In the matter of sin, it is my

wish to exclude absolutely all questions

concerning the holy Virgin Mary, on

account of the honor due to Christ. For

since she conceived and brought forth Him

who most certainly was guilty of no sin, we

know that an abundance of grace was given

her that she might be in every way the

conqueror of sin.”

I answer that, God so prepares and endows

those, whom He chooses for some

particular office, that they are rendered

capable of fulfilling it, according to 2 Cor.

3:6: “(Who) hath made us fit ministers of

the New Testament.” Now the Blessed

Virgin was chosen by God to be His

Mother. Therefore there can be no doubt

that God, by His grace, made her worthy of

that office, according to the words spoken

to her by the angel (Lk. 1:30,31): “Thou

hast found grace with God: behold thou

shalt conceive,” etc. But she would not

have been worthy to be the Mother of God,

if she had ever sinned. First, because the

honor of the parents reflects on the child,

according to Prov. 17:6: “The glory of

children are their fathers”: and

sin.

Objection 3. [Oxon. 4 d.49 q.6 n.11] The

Blessed are not incapable of sin, except in

the compound sense, that is, not because

they lack the power to sin, but because,

with God so anticipating their will that he

always continues their act of enjoying him,

it happens that their power to sin is never

brought to act; therefore if the incapacity to

sin of the Blessed is not from sanctifying

grace, much less could any wayfarer

whatever, through any sanctification

whatever, be incapable of sin.

On the contrary, [Oxon. 3 d.18 n. 13]

Christ merited that his most Blessed

Mother should not contract original sin,

grace having been conferred on her at that

very moment when sin would have been

infused: but from thence it came about that

she never actually sinned; for the fact that

men may fall into sins is from original sin

and its disorderedness; therefore, through

sanctification of that sort, which was

certainly the most singular, the Blessed

Virgin obtained never to sin.

I answer that, it must be said that the

Blessed Virgin had it from sanctifying

grace at the instant of her conception that

she should never sin. Which fact indeed

[Report. 3 d.3 q.1 n.1] Augustine expressed

most clearly (De Natura et Gratia, ch.36)

in saying: “When there is discussion of sins

I wish to have about the Holy Virgin Mary,

because of the honor of the Lord, altogether

no question. For from this we know that

more of grace was conferred on her for

overcoming sin in every part, because she

merited to conceive and bear him who it is

established had no sin.” Therefore that the

Blessed Virgin overcame sin in every part

is to be attributed to her sanctification,

which was so great that it admitted

altogether no sin. -- Next, [Oxon. 2 d.23

20

consequently, on the other hand, the

Mother’s shame would have reflected on

her Son. Secondly, because of the singular

affinity between her and Christ, who took

flesh from her: and it is written (2 Cor.

6:15): “What concord hath Christ with

Belial?” Thirdly, because of the singular

manner in which the Son of God, who is

the “Divine Wisdom” (1 Cor. 1:24) dwelt

in her, not only in her soul but in her

womb. And it is written (Wis. 1:4):

“Wisdom will not enter into a malicious

soul, nor dwell in a body subject to sins.”

We must therefore confess simply that the

Blessed Virgin committed no actual sin,

neither mortal nor venial; so that what is

written (Cant 4:7) is fulfilled: “Thou art all

fair, O my love, and there is not a spot in

thee,” etc.

Reply to Objection 1: After her

sanctification the fomes remained in the

Blessed Virgin, but fettered; lest she should

be surprised by some sudden inordinate act,

antecedent to the act of reason. And

although the grace of her sanctification

contributed to this effect, yet it did not

suffice; for otherwise the result of her

sanctification would have been to render

impossible in her any sensual movement

not preceded by an act of reason, and thus

she would. not have had the fomes, which

is contrary to what we have said above

(Article [3]). We must therefore say that

the above mentioned fettering (of the

fomes) was perfected by divine providence

not permitting any inordinate motion to

result from the fomes.

Reply to Objection 2: Origen (Hom. xvii in

Luc.) and certain other doctors expound

these words of Simeon as referring to the

sorrow which she suffered at the time of

our Lord’s Passion. Ambrose (in Luc. 2:35)

says that the sword signifies “Mary’s

n.7] that human nature, being of itself

defectible, should not sin is from grace.

On this supposition I argue as follows:

Christ would not be the most perfect

meritorious cause and the most perfect

Mediator if he had not merited that there be

given to some person, namely to his

Mother, as much grace as was possible and

fitting to exist in a pure creature: but he

was in very truth such a meritorious cause;

for [Oxon. 3 d.13 q.4 n.9] we ought to

attribute every excellence to Christ the

Lord; therefore he merited that God should

give as much grace as befitted a pure

creature, and from thence that that much

grace was, as a matter of fact, given to his

Mother, who was before all creatures most

united to himself, since he assumed flesh

from her flesh: but if she had at any time

sinned, then in no wise had that fullness of

grace been given to her that could, without

incongruity, exist in a pure creature,

because we could conceive some other

greater grace, which would bring it about

that the person sanctified by it should

admit, and commit, no sin; the grace,

therefore, that was conferred on the

Blessed Virgin was of such a kind, and so

great, that it prevented original sin and

excluded altogether every actual sin. --

Finally, [Oxon. 3 d.19 n.6] Christ, through

his passion, reconciled the human race,

guilty of the sin of its first parent, to the

Trinity accepting that passion; but he most

perfectly reconciled no others except his

Mother, nor was he their most perfect

Repairer, because he permitted them all to

be born as children of wrath, and did not

prevent the actual sins of many of them;

therefore [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 nn.4 to 7] he

ought to have had the act of the most

perfect Reconciler towards his Mother;

from her, accordingly, he ought to have

warded off all penalties impeding the most

perfect reconciliation: but if he had

permitted her at any time to fall into some

21

prudence which took note of the heavenly

mystery. For the word of God is living and

effectual, and more piercing than any two-

edged sword” (Heb. 4:12).

Others again take the sword to signify

doubt. But this is to be understood of the

doubt, not of unbelief, but of wonder and

discussion. Thus Basil says (Ep. ad Optim.)

that “the Blessed Virgin while standing by

the cross, and observing every detail, after

the message of Gabriel, and the ineffable

knowledge of the Divine Conception, after

that wondrous manifestation of miracles,

was troubled in mind”: that is to say, on the

one side seeing Him suffer such

humiliation, and on the other considering

His marvelous works.

Reply to Objection 3: In those words

Chrysostom goes too far. They may,

however, be explained as meaning that our

Lord corrected in her, not the inordinate

motion of vain glory in regard to herself,

but that which might be in the thoughts of

others.

___________________________________

sin, however minimal, he would not have

freed her from all penalties and evils;

therefore he would not have most perfectly

reconciled her to the Trinity; for sin is a

greater penalty for an intellectual nature

than any other penalty, although it be not a

sin, whatsoever; and consequently the

blessed Virgin, as Mother of Christ, ought

to have obtained it from her sanctification

that she should never fall into any sin.

Reply to Objection 1. I concede that the

Blessed Virgin existed as a wayfarer before

her death, as other men do, and I concede

also that she had a will that was of its own

nature defectible and capable of sinning;

but she was incapable of sin, [Oxon. 2 d.23

n.7] and in fact she never did sin, from the

gift of God sanctifying the Mother of the

Only Begotten of the Father with such a

sanctification that any sin was

incompossible with it.

Reply to Objection 2. I reply that there is

no repugnance in Christ having been from

several causes incapable of sin, where any

one of these causes would of itself have

abundantly rendered him such. He was

incapable of sin, therefore, as blessed, and equally because full of grace and truth, and

perhaps also he obtained that dignity from other titles. But the Blessed Virgin his Mother

never sinned because of having grace and sanctification and rectitude so great that by no

reason could any obliquity break into, nor deceit of the enemy penetrate, that most

sincere mind of hers.

Reply to Objection 3. I say [Oxon. 4 d.49 q.6 n.11ff.] that if the Blessed are incapable of

sin for this reason, that God does not permit them to interrupt their act of enjoying him,

then by parity he will not permit those whom he renders incapable of sin as wayfarers to

elicit any unright act, but will make them always to act in line with the inclination of

charity, by which he pursues them with a singular love. And that is why all incapacity to

sin is habitually and in first act from sanctifying grace, and therefore rightly and truly is

the Blessed Virgin said to have obtained her incapacity to sin from her most excellent

sanctification (and of what sort, moreover, her sanctification was will be declared in the

following article).

22

Article 5. Whether, by her sanctification in the womb, the Blessed Virgin received

the fullness of grace?

Aquinas

Objection 1: It would seem that, by her

sanctification in the womb, the Blessed

Virgin did not receive the fullness or

perfection of grace. For this seems to be

Christ’s privilege, according to Jn. 1:14:

“We saw Him [Vulg.: ‘His glory’] as the

Only-Begotten [Vulg.: ‘as it were of the

Only-Begotten’] full of grace and truth.”

But what is proper to Christ ought not to be

ascribed to some one else. Therefore the

Blessed Virgin did not receive the fullness

of grace at the time of her sanctification.

Objection 2: Further, nothing remains to be

added to that which is full and perfect: for

“the perfect is that which lacks nothing,” as

is said Phys. iii. But the Blessed Virgin

received additional grace afterwards when

she conceived Christ; for to her was it said

(Lk. 1:35): “The Holy Ghost shall come

upon thee: and again, when she was

assumed into glory.” Therefore it seems

that she did not receive the fullness of

grace at the time of her first sanctification.

Objection 3: Further, “God does nothing

useless,” as is said De Coelo et Mundo i.

But it would have been useless for her to

have certain graces, for she would never

have put them to use: since we do not read

that she taught, which is the act of wisdom;

or that she worked miracles, which is the

act of one of the gratuitous graces.

Therefore she had not the fullness of grace.

On the contrary, The angel said to her:

“Hail, full of grace” (Lk. 1:28); which

words Jerome expounds as follows, in a

sermon on the Assumption (cf. Ep. ad

Paul. et Eustoch.): “Full indeed of grace:

for to others it is given in portions; whereas

Scotus [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1; Report. ib.]

Objection 1. It seems that the Blessed

Virgin through her sanctification in the

womb did not in any way acquire fullness

of the graces. For [Oxon. 3 d.13 q.2 n.2] to

have fullness of the graces is proper to the

humanity of Christ, because of the fact that

it was united hypostatically to the Divine

Word; hence it is written in John 1: “We

saw his glory as of the Only Begotten from

the Father, full of grace and truth:” but

things that pertain properly to Christ cannot

belong to a pure creature; therefore the

Blessed Virgin did not, through her

sanctification in the womb, acquire fullness

of the graces.

Objection 2. If to the Blessed Virgin were

to be attributed fullness of the graces, it

would be most of all because she had a

measure of sanctification which the other

Saints did not have, namely because she

was preserved through sanctifying grace

from being guilty of original sin; now the

other Saints were freed through grace from

the guilt which they had contracted: but it

does not thereby follow that the Blessed

Virgin was indued with fullness of the

graces, or that she acquired a greater grace

than was in all the other Saints together.

Proof: [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.9) because, after

the removal of original guilt, a grace could

have been bestowed on any one of them by

God in Baptism, or in Circumcision, which

was equal to the grace with which the

Blessed Virgin was flooded, or the grace

could have reached that level through their

merits.

Objection 3. Although to the Blessed

Virgin is to be attributed more ample grace

than to all the other Saints descended from

23

on Mary the fullness of grace was

showered all at once.”

I answer that, In every genus, the nearer a

thing is to the principle, the greater the part

which it has in the effect of that principle,

whence Dionysius says (Coel. Hier. iv) that

angels, being nearer to God, have a greater

share than men, in the effects of the Divine

goodness. Now Christ is the principle of

grace, authoritatively as to His Godhead,

instrumentally as to His humanity: whence

(Jn. 1:17) it is written: “Grace and truth

came by Jesus Christ.” But the Blessed

Virgin Mary was nearest to Christ in His

humanity: because He received His human

nature from her. Therefore it was due to her

to receive a greater fullness of grace than

others.

Reply to Objection 1: God gives to each

one according to the purpose for which He

has chosen him. And since Christ as man

was predestinated and chosen to be

“predestinated the Son of God in power . . .

of sanctification” (Rm. 1:4), it was proper

to Him to have such a fullness of grace that

it overflowed from Him into all, according

to Jn. 1:16: “Of His fullness we have all

received.” Whereas the Blessed Virgin

Mary received such a fullness of grace that

she was nearest of all to the Author of

grace; so that she received within her Him

Who is full of all grace; and by bringing

Him forth, she, in a manner, dispensed

grace to all.

Reply to Objection 2: In natural things at

first there is perfection of disposition, for

instance when matter is perfectly disposed

for the form. Secondly, there is the

perfection of the form; and this is the more

excellent, for the heat that proceeds from

the form of fire is more perfect than that

which disposed to the form of fire. Thirdly,

there is the perfection of the end: for

Adam, because they sinned in him while

the Blessed Virgin was without share of

original guilt; nevertheless greater grace

could not be attributed to the Blessed

Virgin than was in all the Angels, who

were never under any sin, and who are of a

more eminent nature and more capable of

the fullness of grace; but for no other

reason would she be endowed with fullness

of the graces except because a greater grace

would be poured into her than all the other

holy ones together had; therefore the

Blessed Virgin did not get fullness of the

graces in her sanctification.

Objection 4. If the Blessed Virgin Mary

had attainted fullness of the graces and

gifts, she would certainly have used them

for the benefit of the Church: but it is not

established that she exercised those sort of

gifts, nor the graces freely given, for the

benefit of others, and yet the Church at her

time was very greatly in need of ministers,

possessed of the gift of wisdom, who might

educate others and teach the doctrine of

Christ; therefore the Blessed Virgin seems

not to have obtained fullness of the graces

and gifts.

On the contrary, [Oxon. 4 d.1 q.6 n.9] in

Luke 1 the Angel Gabriel says to Mary:

“Hail full of grace;” therefore either it was

as soon as she was sanctified that she

obtained fullness of the graces, or it was

then, in the conceiving of her Son, that she

acquired it .

I answer that, it must be said that the

Blessed Virgin, through sanctification of

the sort she had, acquired fullness of the

graces. If indeed [Oxon. 4 d.25 q.2 n.3; 2

d.19 n.5] her sanctification was of such a

sort and so great that no pure creature can

be equaled to her in sanctity; then, in a

more excellent way, which no sanctity of

another creature reached, she was

24

instance when fire has its qualities in the

most perfect degree, having mounted to its

own place.

In like manner there was a threefold

perfection of grace in the Blessed Virgin.

The first was a kind of disposition, by

which she was made worthy to be the

mother of Christ: and this was the

perfection of her sanctification. The second

perfection of grace in the Blessed Virgin

was through the presence of the Son of

God Incarnate in her womb. The third

perfection of the end is that which she has

in glory.

That the second perfection excels the first,

and the third the second, appears (1) from

the point of view of deliverance from evil.

For at first in her sanctification she was

delivered from original sin: afterwards, in

the conception of the Son of God, she was

entirely cleansed from the fomes: lastly, in

her glorification she was also delivered

from all affliction whatever. It appears (2)

from the point of view of ordering to good.

For at first in her sanctification she

received grace inclining her to good: in the

conception of the Son of God she received

consummate grace confirming her in good;

and in her glorification her grace was

further consummated so as to perfect her in

the enjoyment of all good.

Reply to Objection 3: There is no doubt

that the Blessed Virgin received in a high

degree both the gift of wisdom and the

grace of miracles and even of prophecy,

just as Christ had them. But she did not so

receive them, as to put them and such like

graces to every use, as did Christ: but

accordingly as it befitted her condition of

life. For she had the use of wisdom in

contemplation, according to Lk. 2:19: “But

Mary kept all these words, pondering them

in her heart.” But she had not the use of

sanctified; therefore [Oxon. 4 d.4 q.6 n.3]

her sanctification had a higher and more

excellent mode, which it did not fit any

other creature to have reached. But that

higher mode carried before it fullness of

the graces. For she acquired sanctity and

fullness of the graces in the way and at the

kind of level that the grace was that Christ

her Son merited for her: but Christ [Oxon.

3 d.3 q.1 n.4] had towards his Mother the

most excellent act of mediating and of

meriting grace; for he not only merited that

a guilt of hers, which did nowhere exist in

her, should be destroyed, but in addition

that it should not exist in her, which, that

he should merit it also for the other Saints,

was not conceded. A greater and a more

ample grace therefore did he obtain for his

Mother than for all the other Saints. For

just as all the other Saints, apart from his

Mother, were at some time under sin, so,

for it to be that the Blessed Virgin was

never under guilt, she was deemed worthy

of a greater love from God, and hence was

endowed with a greater sanctity, than all

the Saints together; for they together had

all been deprived at some time of grace,

whether through their own or through an

alien guilt; therefore together all were not

always pleasing to God, nor always holy,

and thence the single sanctity of the

Blessed Virgin is far more excellent than

the sanctity of all the rest. Therefore she

had fullness of the graces, which could not

be found in any other creature, since there

was no other creature as loved and as dear

to God.

Reply to Objection 1. I say that to have

fullness of grace is proper to Christ insofar

as everyone receives from him, as from the

head flowing into all the members of the

body, the grace by which they are

sanctified. And in this way the Blessed

Virgin could not have had fullness of the

graces because the grace which God

25

wisdom as to teaching: since this befitted

not the female sex, according to 1 Tim.

2:12: “But I suffer not a woman to teach.”

The use of miracles did not become her

while she lived: because at that time the

Teaching of Christ was to be confirmed by

miracles, and therefore it was befitting that

Christ alone, and His disciples who were

the bearers of His doctrine, should work

miracles. Hence of John the Baptist it is

written (Jn. 10:41) that he “did no sign”;

that is, in order that all might fix their

attention on Christ. As to the use of

prophecy, it is clear that she had it, from

the canticle spoken by her: “My soul doth

magnify the Lord” (Lk. 1:46, etc.).

___________________________________

conferred on her descended from the

fullness of her Son; but she was full of

grace, and of all supernatural gifts, because

when she conceived Christ she stood out

before all other creatures as the nearest to

God, and she was the nearer to God the

more excellent and higher the act of

mediating and of meriting grace that one

must believe her Son had towards her; and

thence one must believe that she acquired a

greater grace than was given to the rest of

the Saints together.

Reply to Objection 2. If [Oxon. 3 d.32 n.5]

all the other Saints, apart from the Blessed

Virgin, fell in Adam, and she alone was

preserved, it is manifest that God more

loved her by herself than he loved all the

others together; and so it is manifest that he conferred on her a greater grace than he

conferred on all the Saints together; for God was at some time angered with all the other

Saints together, and with the Blessed Virgin alone was he never angered; therefore she

was more loved than all of them. There is also [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1 n.5] an example for this

in agreement with the example of Anselm (Cur Deus Homo, 2 ch.16). For if anyone,

because of an injury done to a king, should deserve to have the king’s anger referred back

both to himself and to all his natural sons, and to such an extent that the king should

declare all of them to have fallen away from the inheritance to which, by right of blood,

they were called; if one mediator should obtain that the others, after the offense to the

king had been contracted, should again be reconciled to him and be restored to their

ancient right, with one of them excepted for whom the mediator so pleases the king that

that one should never incur the royal offense, nor merit his anger, it is manifest how that

mediator, with respect to that one individual, exercises a greater and more excellent

placation, and shows a greater and more excellent charity, than he does with respect to all

the rest -- and that both intensively and extensively, just as the act of placating and

mediating is more intense; for it exceeds extensively and intensively the other act of

placating, both because it has as it were two effects, namely of preserving and of

placating; and because the grace equals, or the gratuitous effect corresponds to, these

effects; therefore he wished more and greater goods to that single individual than to all

the rest; nor is the nature of that exception [Oxon. 3 d 32 n.5] to be looked for and sought

out in the one thus preserved, but in the sole divine will accepting the petitions of the

mediator. And although it be not impossible for God to have given or to give equal grace

to others; nevertheless it was appropriate for this grace to have been given only to the

Mother of Christ, and not to be given to any other creature.

Reply to Objection 3. I say (Cf. q.7 and 8) that the Angels are also more noble than the

humanity of Christ, and yet not they but Christ stood forth full of grace and truth; for he

is of men and of angels the head, from whom they all receive however much they have of

26

grace and truth; therefore although it be that the holy angels were never under sin,

nevertheless because the Mother of Christ is nearer to God than all other creatures, it was

appropriate for her to have received fullness of the graces, but not any of the angels. But

although [Oxon. 4 d.1 q.6 n.12] that fullness of the graces might have been given to the

Blessed Virgin at the instant of her conception, which, to be sure, was fitting for the

future Mother of God, nevertheless the complete fullness of the graces, to which God had

disposed that she would attain, she seems to have received in that very conception of her

Son, in line with that verse of Luke 1: “the Holy Spirit will come upon you and the power

of the Most High will overshadow you.”

Reply to Objection 4. I reply that from the fact that the Blessed Virgin did not use the

gifts and graces with which she was full for the benefit of others, one cannot and one

should not infer that she lacked them; for just as she acquired the motherhood of God

through her humility, so she wished to be of all the humble the exemplar, and of the

feminine sex the leader. For [Oxon. 4 d.25 q.2 n.3] because she knew that, from the

institution of Christ, women ought not publicly to teach in the Church, she wished to

observe this exactly, leaving that function to the disciples of her Son, albeit she was of all

creatures the wisest, and to whom no other should be equated in sanctity. Besides, that

she had the gift of prophecy is established from her canticle the Magnificat, which in

prophetical spirit she proclaimed, Luke 1.

Article 6. Whether after Christ, it was proper to the Blessed Virgin to be sanctified

in the womb?

Aquinas

Objection 1: It would seem that it was

proper for the Blessed Virgin, after Christ,

to be sanctified in the womb. For it has

been said (Article [4]) that the Blessed

Virgin was sanctified in the womb, in order

that she might be worthy to be the mother

of God. But this is proper to her. Therefore

she alone was sanctified in the womb.

Objection 2: Further, some men seem to

have been more closely connected with

Christ than Jeremias and John the Baptist,

who are said to have been sanctified in the

womb. For Christ is specially called the

Son of David and of Abraham, by reason of

the promise specially made to them

concerning Christ. Isaias also prophesied of

Christ in the most express terms. And the

Scotus [Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1; Report. ib.]

I answer that, [Oxon. 4 d.4 q.3 n.2] it must

be said that being sanctified in the womb is

proper in such a way to the Blessed Virgin

that it was conceded to none of the Saints,

and that it was not appropriate to be

conceded to them, because she alone was

the future Mother of God. For although it

be that John the Baptist and Jeremiah had

been sanctified in the womb, and indeed

before they were born; nevertheless, neither

of them was immune from the original

stain, but as they were conceived children

of Adam, so they sinned in him. They

were cleansed, therefore, and reconciled to

God, after having been his enemies,

through the merits of the Mediator. But

[Oxon. 3 d.3 q.1] the Blessed Virgin was so

prevented by sanctifying grace that she was

27

apostles were in converse with Christ

Himself. And yet these are not mentioned

as having been sanctified in the womb.

Therefore it was not befitting that either

Jeremias or John the Baptist should be

sanctified in the womb.

Objection 3: Further, Job says of himself

always daughter of God, and by far the

most acceptable to him, because he had

chosen her to be like this, and had in fact

made her to be like this, and that is why we

read that it was said by the Angel uniquely

to her: “Hail full of grace,” Luke 1.

_________________________________

(Job 31:18): “From my infancy mercy grew up with me; and it came out with me from

[my mother’s] womb.” Nevertheless we do not for this reason say that he was sanctified

in the womb. Neither therefore are we bound to say that Jeremias and John the Baptist

were sanctified in the womb.

On the contrary, It is written of Jeremias (Jer. 1:5): “Before thou camest forth out of the

womb I sanctified thee.” And of John the Baptist it is written (Lk. 1:15): “He shall be

filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother’s womb.”

I answer that, Augustine (Ep. ad Dardan.) seems to speak dubiously of their (Jeremias’

and John the Baptist’s) sanctification in the womb. For the leaping of John in the womb

“might,” as he says, “signify the great truth,” viz. that the woman was the mother of God,

“which was to be made known to his elders, though as yet unknown to the infant. Hence

in the Gospel it is written, not that the infant in her womb believed, but that it ‘leaped’:

and our eyes are witness that not only infants leap but also cattle. But this was unwonted

because it was in the womb. And therefore, just as other miracles are wont to be done,

this was done divinely, in the infant; not humanly by the infant. Perhaps also in this child

the use of reason and will was so far accelerated that while yet in his mother’s womb he

was able to acknowledge, believe, and consent, whereas in other children we have to wait

for these things till they grow older: this again I count as a miraculous result of the divine

power.”

But since it is expressly said (of John) in the Gospel that “he shall be filled with the Holy

Ghost, even from his mother’s womb”; and of Jeremias, “Before thou camest forth out of

the womb, I sanctified thee”; it seems that we must needs assert that they were sanctified

in the womb, although, while in the womb, they had not the use of reason (which is the

point discussed by Augustine); just as neither do children enjoy the use of free will as

soon as they are sanctified by baptism.

Nor are we to believe that any others, not mentioned by Scripture, were sanctified in the

womb. For such privileges of grace, which are bestowed on some, outside the common

law, are ordered for the salvation of others, according to 1 Cor. 12:7: “The manifestation

of the Spirit is given to every man unto profit,” which would not result from the

sanctification of anyone unless it were made known to the Church.

And although it is not possible to assign a reason for God’s judgments, for instance, why

He bestows such a grace on one and not on another, yet there seems to be a certain

fittingness in both of these being sanctified in the womb, by their foreshadowing the

28

sanctification which was to be effected through Christ. First, as to His Passion, according

to Heb. 13:12: “Jesus, that He might sanctify the people by His own blood, suffered

without the gate”: which Passion Jeremias foretold openly by words and by symbols, and

most clearly foreshadowed by his own sufferings. Secondly, as to His Baptism (1 Cor.

6:11): “But you are washed, but you are sanctified”; to which Baptism John prepared

men by his baptism.

Reply to Objection 1: The blessed Virgin, who was chosen by God to be His Mother,

received a fuller grace of sanctification than John the Baptist and Jeremias, who were

chosen to foreshadow in a special way the sanctification effected by Christ. A sign of this

is that it was granted to the Blessed Virgin thence-forward never to sin either mortally or

venially: whereas to the others who were thus sanctified it was granted thenceforward not

to sin mortally, through the protection of God’s grace.

Reply to Objection 2: In other respects these saints might be more closely united to Christ

than Jeremias and John the Baptist. But the latter were most closely united to Him by

clearly foreshadowing His sanctification, as explained above.

Reply to Objection 3: The mercy of which Job speaks is not the infused virtue; but a

certain natural inclination to the act of that virtue.